Author: brettkelly

Celebrities advertising products is an old a tradition as advertising itself. Companies have always gravitated towards A-list actors, singers and media types to hawk their products. But in the last few years this trend seems to be increasing at a rapid pace. You can’t go anywhere without seeing Brad Pitt selling clothing or Jennifer Aniston showcasing the latest perfume. So why does it seem as if celebrities faces are plastered over more products than ever before?

Research has shown that “the number of personality led advertising campaigns has doubled over the last decade”. Simple common sense would say that the vast majority of people in this day and age want to be famous. Advertisers take advantage of this sentiment by hiring celebrities and bringing them down to earth. Essentially, the message that is being sent is that “if you buy this product, you can be a celebrity” or “celebrities are everyday people just like you. By doing this, consumers can relate to products and it is more likely that they will buy whatever is being sold.

So why are celebrities used in advertising today more than ever? Because regular people want the limelight.

Oh how I long for the days when kids would watch TV and their brains would turn to mush. The good ol’ days when kids would see a commercial and cry their eyes out until their parents bought them that Nerf gun. What has happened to our society that we can’t even brainwash our children with a simple TV spot anymore?

While my tongue is firmly planted in cheek, research has shown that kids aren’t affected as greatly by advertising as we thought. According to many market researchers, children are among the most “savvy and sharp consumers” out there. This makes sense. Kids know what they want.

So why all of a sudden does this “child targeted advertising” not work anymore?

Perhaps it never worked in the first place.

All along people have thought of children as these impressionable young sponges. Anything they see, they must have. Anything they hear, they are going to repeat. Is it possible that they are not the mindless little drones that we thought they were?

In my opinion, it is time to stop acting as if kids can be easily corrupted by advertising and accept the fact that if advertisers really want to brainwash kids, they’re gonna have to step up their game.

There are a variety of differeing opinions when the topic of marketing comes up. The majority of people see marketing as the status quo, a fact of life that companies want to publicize their brands and become established in the minds of consumers. Another faction of the population sees marketing as an undeniable evil that is rotting the core of our social values and sucking the life and individuality out of every person caught within the range of its seething capitalist web. Bill Hicks is one of these people.

Bill Hicks was a comedian who rose to prominence throughout the 80s and was immediately viewed as an anti-establishment figure who viewed corporations as immoral enterprises and regularly spoke on his observations of how “Satan’s little helpers [marketers]” have “no rationalization for what they do”. He frequently opined celebrities who used their stardom to thrust companies’ products into the limelight in a mutual attempt to grow their markets. He would call these celebrities out and devalue their ability to be artistic as they had sold their soul to corporate America.

These are two very different points of view. So the question becomes, which one is right? Is there anything morally wrong with companies informing potential customers of their products? Is it really the unabashed brainwashing of “bovine America”, the way Hicks puts it?

While there truly is no answer to these questions, some observations could still be made about the current state of marketing in relation to Hicks’ comments. While marketers are not inherently “evil”, as Hicks states, the core purpose of marketing could easily be construed as immoral. In its most infantile form, marketing is the constant bombardment of the consumer in an effort to supersede any possible competitors in the minds of the public. So… brainwashing, right? While this may seem like a bombastic statement, and many of Hicks’ comments may be off base about the level of immorality in marketing, there is a thread there and a re-evaluation of marals in marketing may be in order.

Have you ever heard the expression ” Money doesn’t grow on trees”? Well, that may not be exactly true.

According to an article from CNBC, the Marijuana Industry in the United States is worth upwards of $40 billion. That’s a lot of money. However, that’s a lot of money that the government isn’t seeing.

For ages, the debate for the legalization of marijuana has raged on. In recent years there has been many attempts to pass laws that make pot legal. Just last year, Proposition 19 was shot down in California which would have legalized possession of marijuana. The report also showed that an estimated $16-$20 Billion in tax revenues would be generated. So the real question is, why is the public so reluctant to tap into the cash cow that is the Marijauna industry?

So the real question is, why is the public so reluctant to tap into the cash cow that is the Marijauna industry?

I believe that it is the fairly conservative views of most Americans that see Marijuana as an evil, narcotic substance. Many people are unaware of the healing properties that Marijuana possesses. This new revenue could be put towards many things that are needed such as roads, hospitals and schools.

I think that it’s time for everyone to sit back, light one up and watch the money grow.

As recently pointed out by Gregory Iannacone, scan-able Quick Response codes have become all the rage. They are a great way for companies to market their products and fully utilize the power of social media.

However, Iannacone mentions that the QR codes have a major folly: The risk associated with scanning an unknown code.

He talks about how “People frequently scan QR codes that do not explicitly have any branding on them” and that this can lead to serious problems such as viruses. I believe that the peroblem does not lie within the technology, but rather, withing people’s willingness to put themselves at risk to contracting cyber viruses.

This relatively new, popular technology should not be cast aside due to a few unfortunate incidents where people unknowingly scanned an unsafe code. Perhaps it is the responsibility of the public to ensure that they know what they are scanning and not always have to be told what is safe and what isn’t.

And this notion that companies will implant viruses in consumers’ hardware in order to sabotage other companies is absurd. Ya, and Ronald McDonald puts ex-lax in every fifth Jr. Whopper. That’s a fact.

So perhaps the responsibility should be on consumers to make sure that they wear protection when engaging in risky scanning

Democracy is a glorious thing. The right to vote is something that people around the world are willing to give their lives for. However, it seems that the United States’ bastardization of the voting process has devalued this right and turned the race for leader of the free world into nothing more than a glorified pissing contest.

According to Yahoo, the most money that is allowed to be spent by a Canadian political party is just north of $21 million, due to federal regulations. While this is a large sum of money, it is understandable due to much of the costs that are incurred (flights, accommodations, salary of staff).

However, this figure pales in comparison to the amount of money that was spent by the Yanks. A staggering $195 million was spent on TV ads alone for the 2008 presidential campaign. This spending is gross overkill. Much of this money goes towards degrading attack ads and other forms of mudslinging.

I believe that it is time for the US government to step in and set regulations and stop elections from becoming more of a popularity contest. At this point, it seems that whoever has the deepest pockets wins. No longer does policy, knowledge or charisma matter, but rather how deep you’re willing to dive into your pocketbook.

I think it’s safe to say that Greece isn’t really a nation that is in touch with reality. Once upon a time, Greeks were good with numbers. Nowadays, Greeks don’t really need to be good at math: They only need one hand to be able to count their life savings.

In reality, Greece is a country that is in tremendous trouble. Excessive spending coupled with no money is a recipe for disaster. You don’t need to be Pythagoras to figure that out.

Greece, in actual fact, is quite reminiscent of early 20th century Russia. People can’t afford to live, there is violence and uprising in the streets, and it’s clear that capitalism isn’t something that has panned out in Greece. So maybe it’s time to give that old philosophy of everyone sharing everything equally and the government controlling everything another shot. Yes that’s right: COMMUNISM

So what if it didn’t exactly work out in the past? There’s always a first for everything. In practice, Greece seems like a nation that could benefit from a modified version of communism. It’s simple: Everyone shares all of the wealth and there will be souvlaki for all!

And if it doesn’t work out, can it really get any worse?

The current NBA lockout has affected many people. Owners, players and team employees have all felt the crunch due to the work stoppage. But is it possible that the economies of smaller NBA markets could be affected by the lockout?

The folks over at the The Oregon Economics Blog hypothesized whether the economy of Portland could be adversely affected by the lack of an NBA franchise operating in the city for an extended period of time. When you think about it, it does make a lot of sense. A market as small as Portland really relies on something as large as the NBA. When you take into account all of the employees that work at the stadium, merchandise sold, money being spent on game nights at local restaurants, it all begins to add up.

However, I hesitate to believe that the economy could be affected to the degree that this blogger makes it out to be. While the Portland Trailblazers may be an important cog in the economy of the city, they are not the only thing keeping the region going. As long as the stoppage of an NBA franchise is not coupled with another major company or franchise pulling out of Portland, I believe that the affect on the economy will be negligible.

Could you imagine living in a world where you could commit a crime that ruined the lives of millions of people, caused companies to become obsolete, destroy countries, and in turn, throw the entire planet into economic turmoil? Well, you got your wish.

Meet Dick Fuld.

Dick is a banker. Dick is the CEO of Lehman Brothers. Dick is a very wealthy man. Dick is a dick.

Dick Fuld is just one of the numerous faces that is responsible for the financial collapse that impoverished millions of people around the world. Banks, such as Lehman Brothers, began giving mortgages to people who couldn’t afford to pay them. For such elite business people, you would think that they would be able to grasp the simple concept that if somebody can’t afford something, you shouldn’t sell it to them.

But when the “shock” that many of these mortgages couldn’t be payed and the houses were foreclosed on arose, people like Dick were standing around with their hands out asking for more money.

When they didn’t get this money, they went bankrupt. All of the assets, investments and pensions that average people had with the banks, were gone. That’s theft in my books.

While this is a gross oversimplification of the financial crisis, simply put, in harsh terms: They fucked up the world and have gotten away with it.

Death: It is something that everyone experiences. Something that is often a very solemn, saddening occurrence. Something that strikes fear into many. Something that is often not wished for. Well, not anymore. Many “blue-chip” companies have begun the practice of gambling on the lives of their employees and have turned death into a money-making venture. Life insurance has traditionally been in place in order to ease the burden of a loved one’s death and ensure that families will not be at a disadvantage following the passing of a provider. However, many companies have now begun taking out life insurance policies on their own employees in order to receive tax breaks.

The ethical breach that is ensuing in this situation is astounding. How can any working person be at ease when they know that there are people that would benefit through their demise. And not just anyone, their employers are the ones that would cash in. These companies have gone behind the backs of their employees and, without notifying them, placed a wager on their life. This is a clear breach of employee-employer trust and has created a new business: The Business of Death.